Countering assertion that GOP’s anti-immigration policies turning them into “party of white people”
by Evan McMurry | 2:45 pm, August 4th, 2014
On Laura Ingraham’s radio show Monday, Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL) accused the Democrats of waging a “war on whites.”
Brooks was countering an assertion by Ron Fournier on Fox News Sunday that the GOP’s anti-immigration policies were turning them into a “party of white people,” which would culminate in a debilitating demographic disadvantage. Brooks flipped that around.
“This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party,” he said. “And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else. It’s part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true.”
“Every single demographic group is hurt by falling wages and lost jobs,” he continued. “So the Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue. If it becomes a thoughtful issue, then we win and we win big. And they lose and they lose big.”
Ingraham called the “war on whites” characterization “a little out there.” “That phraseology might not be the best choice,” she said.
Andrew Clark | August 1st, 2014
When Dwayne Horner called Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee’s office to ask a question, he probably didn’t think he would be treated rudely. But that’s precisely what happened.
In a speech on the House floor, Jackson Lee said that Democrats did not try to impeach President Bush when he was in office. That is false – in fact, she was a cosponsor of a 2008 bill that tried to do just that!
Horner called her office, asking her to explain the blatant contradiction. First, he got an admission of guilt. “We are aware that the congresswoman has made contradicting statements in her remarks on the floor,” the person who answered the phone said. Then, Horner spoke to another staffer.
“Oh look it here, we have one of those right wing, tea-bagger nut jobs on the phone taking his cues from FOX News,” said staffer told Horner. After Horner reminded him that he was a taxpayer, and that taxpayer dollars fund her office, he replied, “I doubt you even pay taxes and the IRS will find you soon enough.”
Using the IRS – in light of the IRS scandal – to threaten a caller? Congresswoman Jackson Lee, call your office. Actually, don’t, because if that’s how they treat taxpayers, I’m not sure you’ll want to.
From PJ Media:
That was startling. I asked to speak to someone in the office to register my thoughts on a congresswoman lying on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. From there, it got crazy but not as crazy, and then a little crazier.
I was transferred to a gentleman on Lee’s staff. When I again asked him about the contradiction and stated that perhaps I was confused, the man said “Oh look it here, we have one of those right wing, tea-bagger nut jobs on the phone taking his cues from FOX News.”
He then accused me of being un-American, raising his voice at me while asking me to calm down, and telling me that I am just on some mission to destroy our country. When I calmly asked for his name, he said “I don’t have to give it to you because I don’t want to show up on some right wing blog and be on your Twitter account.” Keep in mind, I never said who I was – he just made assumptions and attacked me. When I reminded him that he gets paid by our tax dollars, he said “I doubt you even pay taxes and the IRS will find you soon enough,” and hung up on me.
Full-on press blackout testament to dinosaur media’s growing irrelevance
In the US: 4 Major News Networks, Zero Bilderberg 2014 Coverage
by ADAN SALAZAR | INFOWARS | JUNE 1, 2014
With the exception of 24-hour cable news providers, Americans rely on 4 major television networks to deliver them information regarding important world events: ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox.
It is with predictable disappointment to announce all four networks failed to inform the public of a secretive and extremely exclusive meeting of central bankers, CEOs, public officials and world dignitaries taking place this weekend.
From May 29 through today, June 1, esteemed academicians, hand picked journalists, intelligence officials, world banking oligarchs and the CEOs and bosses of Royal Dutch Shell, Google and Microsoft, to name just a few, slinked behind closed doors at the Marriott hotel in Copenhagen, Denmark, to do God knows what.
But watching the major news networks and monitoring the domestic news wires, you’d never guess this meeting happened.
With the conference now into its fourth and final day, one would expect at least a trickle of articles from the mainstream press regarding Bilderberg 2014, if at the least to perform the routine mock, shame and ridicule of “tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists” claiming participants are working towards a “new world order.”
While past meetings have been afforded at least some press, this year neither of the four networks opted to cover Bilderberg 2014.
NBC was most upfront about it:
Other networks have awarded the meeting of elite power brokers press in the past, but for some reason didn’t find this year’s globalist shindig quite as enticing (click to enlarge):
Indeed, the degree to which all four networks uniformly ignored the matter is a curious coincidence, leaving the door open for skeptics to argue they’ve been handed specific orders to disregard the assembly, colluding to perform what’s termed a “media blackout.”
“The reason they want secrecy is because they’re doing evil,” explained late veteran Bilderberg investigative journalist Jim Tucker. For decades, Tucker did tireless work attempting to expose the group, following them to multiple meeting locations around the globe and reporting on leaks concerning their un-official agendas. “Evil is done under the cover of darkness, good works are done in the sunshine.”
But surely, you ask, the top cable news network in the country, CNN, can devote at least a fraction of time or webspace to cover this important meeting? Nope. Are you kidding? They’re busy worrying about the next Clippers owner.
To be fair, one of their hired propagandists, Jake Tapper, did do a superficial, surface report on the conference – last year – putting Bilderberg protestors on the same level as “bigfoot believers” and labeling Alex Jones a “provocateur.”
But surely the newspaper that carries “all the news that’s fit to print” would deem a meeting of elite power brokers “news”? Nope. Not this year.. Maybe that’s because some of its editors have attended past meetings.
“On its face, it makes no sense the corporate media would ignore and fail to report a confab comprised of newsworthy royal elites, chancellors, prime ministers, presidents, ambassadors, secretaries of state, Wall street bankers and investors, CEOs of transnational corporations, and corporate media executives,” writes Kurt Nimmo. “It makes no sense — that is until you realize the corporate media is owned and directed by this very same elite. In the past, darlings of the corporate media have attended Bilderberg meetings, including the late Peter Jennings of ABC, Joseph C. Harsch of NBC, the “liberal” Bill Moyers of PBS, the ‘conservative’ William F. Buckley, Jr., Robert L. Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, the neocon William Kristol, Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times, the late Katharine Graham of the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post, Leslie Stahl of CBS, and many others. Many are also members of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.”
“Jim Tucker puts it best,” writes Michael Collins Piper for American Free Press. “If 140 of the world’s best known baseball players or movie stars gathered secretly under armed guard at an exclusive resort for an entire weekend, every major newspaper and magazine and all of the tabloids would be on hand, clamoring to get inside, demanding to know what was going on behind those closed doors. All of the television gossip shows would be chatting about it regularly. The whole world would know about that secret meeting in a heartbeat.”
Besides a limited number of American sites, and American sites owned by foreign governments, mainstream Bilderberg coverage this year has hovered around zero, a further indication of the dying dinosaur media’s increasing irrelevance.
But even if journalists ventured to Denmark, which Infowars reporters did, they wouldn’t get very far. Taxpayer-funded armed security details keep a 24-hour guard, huge eyesore fences block nosy journalists out and invitees are strictly forbidden from revealing anything discussed at meetings. Secrecy always trumps transparency at Bilderberg.
“I don’t think they’re happy about it, they prefer nothing at all, no publicity, they prefer absolute secrecy,” Tucker said in an interview, commenting on Bilderberg’s sentiments toward the growing media interest garnered in recent years.
The Bilderberg Group recently worked up the courage to put up a website.
This gesture was in all likelihood spurred by incessant coverage from independent media, but it could also mean the group is now confident enough in their plans to move out from behind the curtain.
One thing’s certain.. Vice President Biden’s frequent hat tips to the “New world order” aren’t particularly reassuring.
But then again, maybe there is hope after all:
Clinton’s forthcoming memoir conflicts with facts
By Catherine HerridgePublished May 31, 2014FoxNews.com
Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming memoir obtained by Politico conflict with the factual record about what happened during and after the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.
Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the newly formed Benghazi select committee and the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News before the excerpts were released that he is concerned the administration has not fully grasped the impact of the terrorist assault.
“We know that intelligence analysts on the ground knew instantaneously that this was Al Qaeda and its affiliates who had led this attack. And yet it took an awfully long time — indeed today, it’s still not clear this administration has acknowledged the depth and the risks associated with what it means to have an Al Qaeda affiliate actually take down an American [consulate],” he said.
In the limited excerpts published Friday from Clinton’s Benghazi chapter, the former secretary of State continued to defend the administration from what she termed a “political slugfest.”
Specifically, she defended the flawed explanation — used by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack — that an obscure anti-Islam video fueled a protest gone awry in Benghazi.
“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” Clinton wrote, according to Politico. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video.It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions deny not only the evidence but logic as well.”
Further, she reportedly wrote that Rice relied on existing intelligence in making her statements.
But former CIA deputy director Mike Morell, who now works for Clinton’s principal gatekeeper Philippe Reines at the D.C. consulting firm Beacon Global Strategies, testified in April that it was Rice who linked the video to the Benghazi attack. Morrell, who still faces allegations he misled Congress over the so-called talking points, said the video was not part of the CIA analysis as Clinton seems to suggest.
Morell told members of the House Intelligence Committee that Rice’s claims about the attacks evolving from a protest were “exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed.”
However, he said: “When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to.”
An independent review of more than 4,000 social media postings, conducted by a leading social media monitoring firm in December 2012, also found the YouTube video was a non-event in Benghazi.
“From the data we have, it’s hard for us to reach the conclusion that the consulate attack was motivated by the movie. Nothing in the immediate picture — surrounding the attack in Libya — suggests that,” Jeff Chapman, chief executive with Agincourt Solutions (now Babel Street), told Fox News.
Chapman said his analysts reviewed postings in Libya, including those from Benghazi, over a three-day period beginning on Sept. 11, and saw “no traffic in Benghazi in the immediate lead-up to the attack related to the anti-Islam film.”
The first reference to the anti-Islam film appears to be a retweet of a Russia Today story that was not posted until Sept. 12 at 9:12 a.m. local time. The translation reads, “U.S. ambassador killed in Libya during his country’s consulate in Benghazi – Russia Today http://t.co/SvAV0o7T response to the film abuser.”
In addition, the video was also described as a non-event by Greg Hicks – deputy to Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack — in his May 2013 congressional testimony before the House oversight committee.
Clinton went on to write: “Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people.There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong.A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.”
But the written testimony of Morell shows the administration continued to stick with the “hateful video” explanation long after physical evidence and other intelligence showed there was no demonstration. Morell told the House Intelligence Committee that by Sept. 18, 2012, consulate security video reviewed by the Libyans showed it was a direct assault.
Yet, a week later, before the United Nations on Sept. 25, 2012, President Obama was still relying on the flawed explanation.
“There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents.There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy,” he said.
As part of its ongoing reporting, Fox News was first to report on Sept. 17, 2012, based on an intelligence source on the ground in Libya, that there was no protest.
Separate from the talking points, Clinton’s defense of Rice could also be problematic because Rice inaccurately stated on three network Sunday shows — ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday” — that security was “strong” or “significant” at the consulate on the day of the attack.
She told “Fox News Sunday” that former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, who died in the attack, were there to “provide security,” incorrectly linking them to consulate security.
At a press conference earlier this month, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said the administration should explain who briefed Rice on the talking points as well as the consulate’s security status, and the individual or individuals should be fired. And if nobody briefed her on that, Graham said, Rice should resign.
“They’re completely incompetent, or they were misleading her about the level of security because we were six weeks before an election, or she made it up on her own,” Graham said.
On requests for additional security, Clinton continued to insist that she never saw those cables, and the fact that they were addressed to her as secretary of State was a “procedural quirk.”
Fox News was first to report on an August 2012 State Department classified cable that said the U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault and concluded Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack.”
The authenticity of the classified cable, addressed to the office of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has never been challenged. It was significant enough that then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers during congressional hearings that they were briefed on the cable’s warnings. Clinton, though, claimed it was not brought to her attention.
The cable marked “SECRET” summarized an Aug. 15, 2012 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi. It states that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
According to a review of the cable, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.'”
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. The details in the cable foreshadowed the deadly attack on the U.S. compound.
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable undercuts those claims – as it warned the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack and indicates the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
The Clinton book excerpts published Friday represent a fraction of the entire Benghazi chapter, which reportedly is 34 pages long.
Fox News’ Pamela Browne contributed to this report
Ratings at CNN, MSNBC and Fox News have all been plummeting in recent years
Is The Mainstream Media Dying?
by MICHAEL SNYDER | MAY 20, 2014
Ratings at CNN, MSNBC and Fox News have all been plummeting in recent years, and newspaper ad revenues are about a third of what they were back in the year 2000. So is the mainstream media dying? Despite what you may have heard, the mainstream media is certainly not completely dead just yet.
The average American watches approximately 153 hours of television a month, and as I pointed out in a previous article, about 90 percent of the “information” that is endlessly pumped into our heads through our televisions is controlled by just six gigantic media corporations. However, there are a whole host of signs that things are changing – especially when it comes to news. More Americans than ever are losing faith in the establishment-controlled media and are seeking out alternative sources of information. Is this a trend that the big media companies are going to be able to reverse at some point?
For years, the “news business” has been dominated by CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. But now all three channels are rapidly losing viewers. According to a recently released Pew Research study, the number of prime time viewers for all three networks combined fell by 11 percent last year…
In 2013, the cable news audience, by nearly all measures, declined. The combined median prime-time viewership of the three major news channels—CNN, Fox News and MSNBC—dropped 11% to about 3 million, the smallest it has been since 2007. The Nielsen Media Research data show that the biggest decline came at MSNBC, which lost nearly a quarter (24%) of its prime-time audience. CNN, under new management, ended its fourth year in third place, with a 13% decline in prime time. Fox, while down 6%, still drew more viewers (1.75 million) than its two competitors combined (619,500 at MSNBC and 543,000 at CNN).
And the decline is far more dramatic when you look at just the key 25 to 54-year-old demographic.
From November 2012 to November 2013, CNN’s ratings for that demographic dropped by a staggering 59 percent, and MSNBC’s ratings for that demographic dropped by a staggering 52 percent.
Is this a sign that Americans are finally getting fed up with the endless propaganda being spewed by those establishment mouthpieces?
A recent survey conducted by a liberal polling firm would indeed seem to indicate that this is the case. That survey found that only 6 percent of Americans consider MSNBC to be their most trusted source for news…
NBC News and sister cable network MSNBC rank at the bottom of media outlets Americans trust most for news, with Fox News leading the way, according to a new poll from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.
In its fifth trust poll, 35 percent said they trusted Fox news more than any other outlet, followed by PBS at 14 percent, ABC at 11 percent, CNN at 10 percent, CBS at 9 percent, 6 percent for MSNBC and Comedy Central, and just 3 percent for NBC.
And of course it is not just the big mainstream news networks that are in decline.
A recently released Pew Research study discovered that the decline of America’s newspapers continued in 2013 as well…
The Newspaper Association of America has stopped compiling quarterly reports on advertising revenue. According to its annual numbers, which were released in April 2014, overall revenue for newspapers in 2013 was $37.6 billion, a decrease of 2.6% from 2012. Within that total, combined print and digital ad revenue decreased by 7%—to $20.7 billion.
Seven percent may not sound like much, but you have to realize that these declines have been happening year after year. When you look back over a longer time frame, it really puts the massive decline that we have witnessed in advertising revenues in perspective…
It took a half century for annual newspaper print ad revenue to gradually increase from $20 billion in 1950 (adjusted for inflation in 2013 dollars) to $65.8 billion in 2000, and then it took only 12 years to go from $65.8 billion in ad revenues back to less than $20 billion in 2012, before falling further to $17.3 billion last year.
Even when revenues from digital advertising and other categories described by the NAA as “niche publications, direct marketing and non-daily publication advertising” are added to print ad revenue (see red line in chart), the combined total revenues for print, digital and other advertising last year was still only $23.56 billion in 2013 dollars, which was the lowest amount of annual ad revenue since 1954, when $23.3 billion was spent on print advertising alone.
Yes, you read those numbers correctly. As you can see from this chart, newspaper ad revenues are now about a third of what they were back in the year 2000.
That is not just a “shift” – that is a massive tsunami.
Needless to say, the big newspapers are quite distressed by all of this.
For example, “the Grey Lady” herself is essentially in a state of panic at this point. Just recently, a 96 page internal New York Times report was obtained by BuzzFeed that basically skewers the company’s current strategy when it comes to the Internet…
A 96-page internal New York Times report, sent to top executives last month by a committee led by the publisher’s son and obtained by BuzzFeed, paints a dark picture of a newsroom struggling more dramatically than is immediately visible to adjust to the digital world, a newsroom that is hampered primarily by its own storied culture.
But they still don’t understand the true cause of their decline.
It isn’t the fact that they haven’t adapted to the Internet very well that is the primary reason for their decline.
Rather, it is the fact that the American people are losing faith in the New York Times and other similar establishment mouthpieces.
News magazines are also experiencing a dramatic multi-year decline. Ad revenues are way down across the entire industry, and any publication that can keep their yearly losses to the single digits is applauded for it…
For a third year in a row, news magazines faced a difficult print advertising environment. Combined ad pages (considered a better measure than ad revenue) for the five magazines studied in this report were down 13% in 2013, following a decline of 12.5% in 2012, and about three times the rate of decline in 2011, according to the Publishers Information Bureau. Again, hardest hit was The Week, which suffered a 20% drop in ad pages. The Atlantic fell 17%, The Economist 16%, and Time about 11%, while The New Yorker managed to keep its ad pages losses in single digits (7%).
Mainstream media executives appear to be optimistic that they can reverse these declines at some point, but they simply don’t realize that there has been a fundamental paradigm shift when it comes to the news media in the United States.
The general population has lost a tremendous amount of faith in the mainstream media. They are increasingly becoming aware that it is deeply controlled by the establishment.
At this point, the charade is so out in the open that even reporters are talking about it. For example, former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson says that the “influence on the media” by political and corporate interests is “unprecedented”…
“There is unprecedented, I believe, influence on the media, not just the news, but the images you see everywhere. By well-orchestrated and financed campaign of special interests, political interests and corporations. I think all of that comes into play.“
Remember, this is not just some outsider that is saying these things. Attkisson worked in the industry for more than 30 years.
And the American people know that they are getting very little truth from the establishment media these days. A recent Gallup survey found that only 23 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the mainstream media at this point. Increasingly, Americans are turning to other sources for news and information.
This is fueling an unprecedented alternative news boom, and more Americans than ever are relying on the Internet as their main source of news. If you doubt this, just check out this chart.
30 years ago, you would have never been able to read this article. It never would have gotten past the gatekeepers that had almost total control over what Americans read, watched and listened to.
But now things have changed. The Internet has allowed ordinary Americans to communicate with each other on a scale that has never been possible before. As we share information with each other, we are increasingly becoming aware that we don’t need the mainstream media to define what reality is for us after all.
If the mainstream media really wants to keep from dying, they should at least try to start telling us the truth.
Unfortunately, that simply is not going to happen. The political and corporate interests that control the big media corporations have way too much to lose.
So we will have to continue to learn to think for ourselves and to share news and information with each other over the Internet.
In the end, we will all be much better off being unplugged from “the matrix” anyway.
May 16, 2014
Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said newly disclosed emails on the IRS targeting of conservative groups “gives lie” to the White House claim that it was not for political reasons.
Participating in the All Star Panel on Fox News’ “Special Report,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist also said the Obama administration’s targeting of opponents is “a major abuse of power.”
“It gives lie to the administration’s claim that this had nothing to do with the election, nothing to do with targeting opponents of the administration,” he said. “The BOLO, the be on the lookout, here’s who you target, specifically says that these are groups where you can find statements in the case file that are critical of how country is being run.”
“That’s the definition of the president’s opposition,” Krauthammer continued. “These are the people that you target. This is a major abuse of power.”
The emails in question were uncovered by Judicial Watch, and among other things, seems to disprove the Obama administrations’s claim that the targeting of tea party groups was the result of two “rogue agents” in the Cincinnati office.
“They covered up for two years and now they say, ‘Hey, dude, two-year-old story so it’s old news,’” Krauthammer said. “Let’s see if the mainstream media will treat it as old news or what it really is, new news of misleading America and covering it up.”
This article was posted: Friday, May 16, 2014 at 5:09 am